Ron Bonighton v Nationwide News Pty Limited

This case involves a defamation claim brought by Ron Bonighton against Nationwide News Pty Limited and Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd. The plaintiff alleges that he was defamed by four newspaper articles, which made certain allegations of misconduct within the Defence Signals Directorate. The defendants opposed the plaintiff’s application for leave to file a Third Further Amended Statement of Claim, arguing that the proposed pleading was defective in the way it pleaded publication in jurisdictions other than the Australian Capital Territory and New South Wales by failing to plead how the plaintiff was identified in each separate jurisdiction.

The substantive issue raised by the defendants was the claimed inadequacy of the pleadings in that they failed to properly identify the cause of action in relation to the publication beyond the ACT and New South Wales. The court found that if a plaintiff was not expressly identified as the target of the defamatory allegations, it can be a requirement that the pleadings set out how the plaintiff had been connected to the defamatory material. The court also noted that the law relating to pleading in defamation proceedings was particularly arcane but the purpose of pleadings in defamation actions were the same as the purpose of pleadings in any civil litigation.

The court held that the plaintiff should be required to plead expressly how it was said that the material complained of had been identified as being of and concerning him. If it was pleaded on the basis of notoriety, this should be made clear. If it was to be said that, although the holder of the office of Director of the Defence Signals Directorate was not widely publicised and notorious (if that be the case), the plaintiff was identified by certain persons holding, perhaps, positions of responsibility in security and intelligence services in other jurisdictions, this also should be made clear. The court denied the plaintiff leave to amend as proposed and directed that a further proposed amended statement of claim be filed within 28 days.

The court made the following orders: (1) leave to file third further amended statement of claim pursuant to notice of motion of 1 February 2006 denied; (2) plaintiff to file a further amendment within 28 days; (3) defendants to have costs of this motion.